Colt Python action
- Thread starter Cousin Pat
- Start date
CharlieDeltaJuliet
New member
If I am not mistaken it was a glorified polish job (in the late 60's) that Colt charged an extra $125. Which was quite a bit back then. It was significantly lighter than my fathers or uncles pythons. He shot many competitions and wanted a snub nose to try. To his dismay it was a great action but very inaccurate on paper at 15ft. He had a 4" that he shot often and it was very accurate. I bought it for a song. One of my fathers friends needed a 2 & 1/2" Royal Blued to complete his collection( he had never seen a Royal blue 2.5"). So he made me a very generous offer.
Jim Watson
New member
I have not seen a Python or other pre-1969 Colt DA that did not "stack" enough to annoy Smith shooters. It is usually a smooth stack, but stack it does.
That $125 Colt Custom Shop action job was much more than a "glorified polish job." They curved the DA lifting surface on the trigger to eliminate the stack, retimed the action to accommodate the change in leverage, and "raftered" the mainspring. They used a lighter bolt spring, I think the one off the thumb latch. I think they used a lighter firing pin spring, I know we Colt shooters did when servicing the guns. Half of the spring off a Rockchucker primer cup worked pretty well.
I have one of those, bought and set up for PPC in the 1970s and it is a fine smooth shooter but the reduced mainspring requires Federal primers.
I had a 4" set up for IDPA SSR by Reeves Jungkind late in his gunsmithing career. I got his duty job which is not so light but will fire other primers besides Federal.
I had an ANIB Python on Jerry Moran's waiting list for several years, but he got out of the revolver business and I sold it.
But I would not buy a Python to shoot in stock form. A good S&W with more uniform DA is more to my taste. If the L frames had been available when I was shooting PPC, I would have gone with one of them.
That $125 Colt Custom Shop action job was much more than a "glorified polish job." They curved the DA lifting surface on the trigger to eliminate the stack, retimed the action to accommodate the change in leverage, and "raftered" the mainspring. They used a lighter bolt spring, I think the one off the thumb latch. I think they used a lighter firing pin spring, I know we Colt shooters did when servicing the guns. Half of the spring off a Rockchucker primer cup worked pretty well.
I have one of those, bought and set up for PPC in the 1970s and it is a fine smooth shooter but the reduced mainspring requires Federal primers.
I had a 4" set up for IDPA SSR by Reeves Jungkind late in his gunsmithing career. I got his duty job which is not so light but will fire other primers besides Federal.
I had an ANIB Python on Jerry Moran's waiting list for several years, but he got out of the revolver business and I sold it.
But I would not buy a Python to shoot in stock form. A good S&W with more uniform DA is more to my taste. If the L frames had been available when I was shooting PPC, I would have gone with one of them.
Mike Irwin
Staff
No, you're wrong because you made a sweeping pronouncement that didn't even attempt to take into consideration that there are other factors that can weigh equally heavily on a person's decision.
In that sense, it's not unlike those idiots who proclaim that anyone who doesn't support the current president's policies is a racist.
But I don't like his ... nope, you're a racist.
But he's abrogated legal .... nope, you're a racist.
Have to admit, I found that statement/sentiment to be rather surprising coming from you.
That's what earned you the
, it still earns you a , and you're still wrong becuase you've apparently locked yourself in to an absolutist state in which the only truth is the truth which you've created. In other words, an illusory truth, a tautology.
But, if that's the universe and its reality according to Saxon Pig, then mazeltov.
In that sense, it's not unlike those idiots who proclaim that anyone who doesn't support the current president's policies is a racist.
But I don't like his ... nope, you're a racist.
But he's abrogated legal .... nope, you're a racist.
Have to admit, I found that statement/sentiment to be rather surprising coming from you.
That's what earned you the
, it still earns you a , and you're still wrong becuase you've apparently locked yourself in to an absolutist state in which the only truth is the truth which you've created. In other words, an illusory truth, a tautology.But, if that's the universe and its reality according to Saxon Pig, then mazeltov.
Last edited:
I don't care for the cylinder release, either, but this thread isn't a Colt vs S&W thread, but rather a discussion of the Python action. Let's stick to the topic, folks, lest we devolve into another mind-numbing waste of bandwidth over a touchy topic that's been beat to death.
jw, it's been a while since I completely disassembled my OP, my circa 1931 allowed the cylinder to rotate CCW with very little pressure. I fixed this problem by filing down the bolt in front of the camming area this allowed the bolt to contact the cylinder (locking notches?) deeper and fixed the problem. This shooter has a much heavier DA than the Marshal and I think I'll copy your post in case I ever find replacement parts. The 32/20 has excellent accuracy with my handloads.
micromontenegro
New member
Some say it was made that way so it would be impossible to unlatch the cylinder accidentally under recoil.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Regarding the stacking on Colt triggers, that is one thing that actually doesn't bother me about the action.
In its own way it reminds me of a two stage trigger on a military rifle.
In its own way it reminds me of a two stage trigger on a military rifle.
Dfariswheel
New member
I hate that pull back cylinder release. It's not instinctive and I've never come up with a valid argument for it
When the Colt double action was designed the preferred method of shooting was the old duelist one hand at arm's length style.
Later, formal target matches were shot using the same stance.
In this style, the thumb was to be rested high up on the frame near the hammer for a fast single action hammer cock, and Colt designed the cylinder latch to serve as a thumb rest.
This is why Colt's up to WWII had a checkered cylinder latch, to give a non-slip surface for the thumb.
Also, if your thumb was resting on the latch, there was no way the cylinder could accidentally open.
S&W used a push type latch, and you can't rest your thumb on the latch as easily without risking unlatching the cylinder if your thumb pushes it under recoil.
When the Colt double action was designed the preferred method of shooting was the old duelist one hand at arm's length style.
Later, formal target matches were shot using the same stance.
In this style, the thumb was to be rested high up on the frame near the hammer for a fast single action hammer cock, and Colt designed the cylinder latch to serve as a thumb rest.
This is why Colt's up to WWII had a checkered cylinder latch, to give a non-slip surface for the thumb.
Also, if your thumb was resting on the latch, there was no way the cylinder could accidentally open.
S&W used a push type latch, and you can't rest your thumb on the latch as easily without risking unlatching the cylinder if your thumb pushes it under recoil.
With all respect to Dfariswheel, (for whom I have a lot of respect), the Colt latch was not really designed for target shooters or to prevent accidentally opening the latch. It was a natural followup to the latch of the earlier Colt DA Navy (1889) and the Colt New Army and Navy. The latch on those guns contained a stop that kept the cylinder from rotating backward. To make that work, the latch had to pull back since it couldn't be pushed forward. That was, of course, a full decade before the S&W Model 1899, the first S&W to have a cylinder latch. (The Model 1896 opened by pulling the extractor rod forward.)
So Colt was in pioneering country, and that was their solution to a problem. Later, when they moved the sideplate to the left side, they had to incorporate the latch into the sideplate since they couldn't move it to the right side.
A good idea to have to pull the latch back? I don't think so, but I have used both types enough that I am not bothered by the Colt system. In fact, I prefer it to the Ruger or Dan Wesson system, though I agree with those who say the S&W is more instinctive and (IMHO) has no real problems.
As to Colt "stacking", that, too, is the result of the design; the highly skilled (and expensive) workers who tuned the Python actions only alleviated that condition; they did not eliminate it. The S&W cam design (which was incorporated into the M&P Model 1905 Third Change in 1909) operated to change the leverage of the trigger/hammer interface, eliminating the stacking that continued to plague Colt. Oddly, S&W seems not to have made much of that change; Neal and Jinks call it "a minor change ... to incorporate a slightly different double action throw". Pretty low key for a change that would eliminate stacking in the S&W and set it apart from almost every other DA revolver lockwork design!
Jim
So Colt was in pioneering country, and that was their solution to a problem. Later, when they moved the sideplate to the left side, they had to incorporate the latch into the sideplate since they couldn't move it to the right side.
A good idea to have to pull the latch back? I don't think so, but I have used both types enough that I am not bothered by the Colt system. In fact, I prefer it to the Ruger or Dan Wesson system, though I agree with those who say the S&W is more instinctive and (IMHO) has no real problems.
As to Colt "stacking", that, too, is the result of the design; the highly skilled (and expensive) workers who tuned the Python actions only alleviated that condition; they did not eliminate it. The S&W cam design (which was incorporated into the M&P Model 1905 Third Change in 1909) operated to change the leverage of the trigger/hammer interface, eliminating the stacking that continued to plague Colt. Oddly, S&W seems not to have made much of that change; Neal and Jinks call it "a minor change ... to incorporate a slightly different double action throw". Pretty low key for a change that would eliminate stacking in the S&W and set it apart from almost every other DA revolver lockwork design!
Jim
I fired my first Colt Python last Friday. I got to shoot a couple of cylinders of .38 special and 1 cylinder of .357. It was the blued 4.5" barrel model. I absolutely LOVED it!!
After checking the various gun broker sites, now I am sad. I did not realize that the Python's were so EXPENSIVE!! There is no way I can go $1500 to $2000 for a gun. I guess I"ll have to make do with a new Smith .357 or a Ruger GP 100. Probably won't be as smooth, but I won't go broke buying it.
Joe
After checking the various gun broker sites, now I am sad. I did not realize that the Python's were so EXPENSIVE!! There is no way I can go $1500 to $2000 for a gun. I guess I"ll have to make do with a new Smith .357 or a Ruger GP 100. Probably won't be as smooth, but I won't go broke buying it.
Joe
While I agree that in the four revolver designs being discussed, the Dan Wesson release is likely the most "annoying" or "hard to get used to" of all four, it's not that much of a mystery.
When most double action revolver shooters manipulate their revolver for the ejection of spent cartridges, the thumb on their left hand goes directly to that spot anyway, on every S&W, Colt and Ruger revolver. Two fingers on the left hand through the window on the frame and that same left thumb pushes down on the ejector rod to free the spent brass.
It's definitely different and far removed from the other three, but it's not a total mystery as to why it's there and how it's deployed. In fact, it makes a lot of sense.
spacecoast
New member
Interesting discussion of both stacking and the cylinder latch mechanism design, thanks guys. I never thought of resting my thumb on the Colt latch. However, the wide target hammer on my 1967 OMM would be interfered with by my thumb when shooting, so perhaps they were not using those hammers back when the latch was checkered.
The consensus (with exceptions) would seem to be that the non-stacking design is preferred by DA shooters, even to the extent of modifying the internals of the Colt action, and I think the results of the Ranking Revolver Designs poll would back that up.
The consensus (with exceptions) would seem to be that the non-stacking design is preferred by DA shooters, even to the extent of modifying the internals of the Colt action, and I think the results of the Ranking Revolver Designs poll would back that up.
Last edited:
Hardly.....
Nothing feels "right" to me about a Python.
Sadly, for my sake, that bias cost me a pretty penny.
I had the chance to buy two of them in 4" Royal Blue for $1200 ($600 each) brand new in the box as long as I bought both.
Had I known that in a dozen years I could have doubled my money, I would have bought them.
& to show you how "wrong" I think they feel, they would probably still be unfired!
I just flat out don't care for the Colt trigger.
The cylinder release is a whole different matter....I don't like that or even want one that works backwards in my house.